From a Publicist’s Diary (Peasants and Workers)

PEASANTS AND WORKERS

Published:First published inRabochyNo. 6, September 11 (August 29), 1917.

      Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to theRabochytext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages278-286.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2002You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Izvestiaof the All-Russia Congress of Peasants’
	Deputies[1]No. 88, of August 19, carries an exceedingly interesting article
      which should be regarded as basic material for every Party
      propaganda and agitation worker who has anything to do with the
      peasants and for every class-conscious worker who is going to the
      countryside or comes in contact with peasants.

Thearticle is entitled “Model Mandate Compiled on the
      Basis of 242 Mandates Submitted by Local Deputies to the
      First All-Russia Congress of Peasants’ Deputies Held in
      Petrograd, 1917”

Thebest thing would be for the Congress of Peasants’ Deputies
    to publish as much detailed information as possible about all
    those mandates. (if it is absolutely impossible to print them all
    in full, which, of course, would be preferable). It is
    particularly necessary, for instance, to have a full list of the
    gubernias, uyezds and volosts, showing how many mandates have been
    received from each locality, when they were compiled or delivered,
    and to analyse at least the basic demands, so that we can tell
    whether the various points differ according to areas, whether such
    questions as abolition of private property rights to allpeasantlands, periodic redistribution of land, prohibition of
    wage-labour, confiscation of the landowners’ implements and
    livestock, etc., etc., are put differently in, say, areas with
    homestead and communal land ownership, areas with Russian and
    non-Russian populations, central and outlying areas, areas that
    never had serfdom, and so on. No thorough-going study of the
    extraordinarily valuable material contained in the peasant
    mandates is possible without such details. And we Marxistsmust
    exert every effort to make a thorough-going study of the facts
    underlying our policy.

Inthe absence of better material, and as long as it has not
    been proved factually incorrect in one respect or another, thesummary of the mandates(as we shall call the “Model
    Mandate”) remains the only material of its kind which, we
    repeat, is an absolute must for every Party member.

Thefirst part of the summary is devoted to general political
    principles, to demands of political democracy; the second, to the
    land question. (It is to be hoped that the All-Russia Congress of
    Peasants’ Deputies or some other body will summarise the peasants’
    mandates and resolutions concerning the war.) Without going into
    detail in the first part, we shall note only two points from it,
      § 6,
      demanding the election of all office-holders, and
      § 11,
      calling
    for the abolition of the standing army once the war is over. These
    points bring the peasants’ political programmeclosest of allto
    the Bolshevik Party programme. Basing ourselves on these points,
    we must stress and prove through all our propaganda and agitation
    that the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary leaders are
    traitors not only to socialism, but also to democracy. In
    Kronstadt, for instance, contrary to the will of the population
    and to democratic principles, and to please the capitalists, they
    upheld the office of a commissar subject toapprovalby the
    government, that is, an office not purely elective. In the
    Petrograd district councils and in other local self-government
    bodies, the Socialist-B evolutionary and Menshevik leaders,
    contrary to democratic principles, are fighting the Bolshevik
    demand for the immediate institution of a workers’ militia, to be
    succeeded by a popular militia.

Accordingto the summary, the peasant land demands are primarily
    abolition of private ownership of all types of land, including the
    peasants’ lands, without compensation; transfer of lands on which
    high-standard scientific farming is practised to the state or the
    communes; confiscation of all livestock and implements on the
    confiscated lands (peasants with little land are excluded) and
    their transfer to the state or the communes; a ban on wage-labour;
    equalised

    distribution of land among the working people, with periodical
    redistributions, and so on. In the transition period, pending the
    convocation of the Constituent Assembly, thepeasants demand theimmediateenactment of laws prohibiting the purchase and sale of
    land, abolition of laws concerning separation from the commune,
    farmsteads, etc., laws protecting forests, fisheries, etc.,
    abolishing long-term and revising short-term leases, and so on.

Youdo not have to give these demands a lot of thought to see
    that it is absolutely impossible to realise themin alliancewith
    the capitalists, without breaking completely with them, without
    waging the most determined and ruthless struggle against the
    capitalist class, without overthrowing its rule.

TheSocialist-Revolutionaries are deceiving themselves and the
    peasants precisely by assuming and spreading the idea that these
    reforms, orsimilarreforms, are possible without overthrowing
    capitalist rule, without all state power being transferred to the
    proletariat, without the peasant poor supporting the most
    resolute, revolutionary measures of a proletarian state power
    against the capitalists. The significance of the appearance of a
    Left wing among the “Socialist-Revolutionaries” is that it
    proves there is a growing awareness of this deception within their
    party.

Indeed,confiscation of all private land means the confiscation
    of hundreds of millions in capital belonging to the banks to which
    the greater part of this land is mortgaged. How can any measure
    like this be taken without the revolutionary class overcoming the
    capitalists’ resistance by revolutionary methods? Moreover, it is
    here a question of the most highly centralised capital of all,
    bank capital, which is connected through billions of threads with
    all the nerve centres of the capitalist economy of a huge country
    and which can be defeated only by the no less centralised might of
    the urban proletariat.

Further,take the transfer of highly efficient farms to the
    state. Obviously, the “state” capable of taking them over
    and running them really and truly in the interests of the working
    people, and not in the interests of the officials and the
    capitalists themselves, must be a proletarian revolutionary
    state.

Theconfiscation of stud farms, etc., and then of all livestock
    and implements, is something more than striking one staggering
    blow after another at private ownership ofthe means of
    production. It means taking steps towards socialism, for the
    transfer oflivestock and implements“to the exclusive use of
    the state or a commune’ implies large-scale, socialist agriculture
    or at least socialist control over integrated small farms,
    socialist regulation of their economy.

Andwhat about a “ban” on wage-labour? This is a
    meaningless phrase, helpless, unwittingly naive wishful thinking
    on the part of downtrodden petty proprietors, who do not see that
    capitalist industry as a whole would come to a standstill if there
    were no reserve army of wage-labour in the countryside, that it is
    impossible to “ban” wage-labour in the villages while
    permitting it in the towns, and lastly, that to “ban”
    wage-labour means nothing but a step towards socialism.

Herewe come to the fundamental question of the workers’
    attitude to the peasants.

Amass Social-Democratic workers’ movement has existed in
    Russia for more than twenty years (if we begin with the great
    strikes of 1896). Throughout this long span of time, through two
    great revolutions, through the entire political history of Russia,
    runs the issue of whether the working class is to lead the
    peasants forward, to socialism, or whether the liberal bourgeoisie
    are to drag them back, to conciliation with capitalism.

Theopportunist wing of the Social-Democrats has always
    reasoned by the worldly-wise formula:sincethe
    Socialist-Revolutionaries are petty bourgeois, “we” reject
    their philistine utopian views on socialismin the name ofbourgeois rejection of socialism. Struvism neatly replaces
    Marxism, and Menshevism slithers down to the role of a Cadet
    flunkey seeking to “reconcile” the peasants to bourgeois
    rule. The latest and most striking evidence of that role is that
    Tsereteli and Skobelev, hand in hand with Chernov and Avksentyev,
    were busy signing the Cadets’ reactionary landowner decrees in the
    name of “revolutionary democrats”.

Therevolutionary Social-Democrats, who have never renounced
      criticism of the petty-bourgeois illusions of the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries, andnever entered into any
      blocwith them exceptagainstthe Cadets, work unremittinglyto wrestthe peasants away from Cadet influence, and in opposition to the
      philistine’s utopian view of socialism,put forward the
      revolutionary proletarian road to socialism instead of liberal
      conciliation with capitalism.

Nowthat the war has speeded up developments fantastically,
    aggravated the crisis of capitalism to the utmost, and confronted
    the peoples with making an immediate choice between destruction
    and immediate determined strides towards socialism, the full depth
    of the gulf between semi-liberal Menshevism and revolutionary
    proletarian Bolshevism is clearly revealed over the practical
    issue of what action the tens of millions of peasants should
    take.

Acceptthe rule of capitalbecause“we” are not yet ripe
    for socialism, the Mensheviks tell the peasants, substituting,
    incidentally, the abstract question of “socialism” in
    general for the concrete question of whether it is possible to
    heal the wounds inflicted by the war without decisive strides
    towards socialism.

Acceptcapitalismbecausethe Socialist-Revolutionaries are
    petty-bourgeois utopians, the Mensheviks tell the peasants and
    rally together with the Socialist-Revolutionaries to support the
    Cadet government.

Andthe Socialist-Revolutionaries, beating their breast, assure
    the peasants that they are against any peace with the capitalists,
    that they have never regarded the Russian revolution as a
    bourgeois revolution—andthereforeenter into a bloc with theopportunistSocial-Democrats and rally to support a bourgeois
    government. The Socialist-Revolutionaries sign all peasant
    programmes. however revolutionary, except that they do so not to
    carry them out, but to pigeon-hole them and deceive the peasants
    with the most noncommittal promises, while actually pursuing for
    months a policy of compromise with the Cadets in the coalition
    government.

Thiscrying, practical, direct, palpable betrayal of the
    peasants’ interests by the Socialist-Revolutionaries radically
    alters the situation. We must take this change into account. It is
    not enough to conduct agitation against the
    Socialist-Revolutionaries in the old way, the way we did between
    1902 and 1903, and 1905 and 1907. It is not enough to expose
    theoretically the petty-bourgeois illusions of “socialisation
    of land”, “equalised land tenure”, “a ban on
    wage-labour”, etc.

Thatwas on the eve of the bourgeois revolution, or before the
    bourgeois revolution’s completion, and the task was primarily to
    carry it through to overthrow the monarchy.

Nowthe monarchy has been overthrown. The bourgeois revolution
    has been completed in so far as Russia has become a democratic
    republic with a government of Cadets, Mensheviks and
    Socialist-Revolutionaries. And the war in the past three years has
    pushed us a good thirty years ahead. It has forced on Europe
    universal labour service and the compulsory syndication of
    undertakings, caused hunger and unprecedented ravages in the
    leading countries, and imposed steps towards socialism.

Thefundamental premise of our class policy at that time was
    that only the workers and peasants can overthrow the monarchy. And
    this premise was correct. February and March 1917 reaffirmed
    this.

Thepremise of our class policy today is that only the
    proletariat, leading the poorest peasants (the semi-proletarians,
    as our programme puts it), can end the war with a democratic
    peace, heal the war wounds, and initiate steps towards socialism
    which have become absolutely necessary andurgent.

Itfollows that the emphasis in our propaganda and agitation
    against the Socialist-Revolutionaries must be shifted to the fact
    that they have betrayed the peasants. They represent a minority of
    well-to-do farmers rather than the mass of the peasant poor. They
    are leading the peasants to an alliance with the capitalists,
    i.e., to subordination to them, rather than to an alliance with
    the workers. They have bartered the interests of the working and
    exploited people for ministerial posts and a bloc with the
    Mensheviks and Cadets.

History,accelerated by the war, has forged so far ahead that the
    old formulas have acquired a new meaning. “A ban on
    wage-labour” was formerlyonlyan empty phrase bandied
    about by the petty-bourgeois intellectual. In the light of today,
    it means something different: the millions of peasant poor say in
    their 242 mandates that they want hired labour abolished but do
    not know how to do it. We know how. We
    know that this can be done only in alliance with the workers,
    under their leadership, against the capitalists, not through a
    compromise with them.

Theseare the changes that the basic line of our propaganda and
    agitation against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the basic line we
    pursue in addressing the peasants, must now undergo.

TheSocialist-Revolutionary Party has betrayed you, comrade
    peasants. It has betrayed the hovels and deserted to the palaces,
    if not the royal palaces, then those where the Cadets, those
    bitter enemies of the revolution, and particularly the peasant
    revolution, sit in the same government as the Chernovs,
    Peshekhonovs, and Avksentyevs.

Onlythe revolutionary proletariat, only the vanguard that
    unites it, the Bolshevik Party, canactuallycarry out the
    programme of the peasant poor which is put forward in the 242
    mandates. For the revolutionary proletariat isreallyadvancing to
    the abolition of wage-labour along the only correct path, through
    the overthrow of capital and not by prohibiting the hiring of
    labourers, not through a “ban” on wage-labour. The
    revolutionary proletariat is really advancing to confiscation of
    land, implements, and agricultural technical establishments, to
    what the peasants want and what the Socialist-Revolutionariescannotgive them.

Thisis how the basic line pursued by the worker in addressing
    the peasant must now change. We workers can and will give you what
    the peasant poor want and are searching for without always knowing
    where and how to find it. We workers are upholding our own
    interests and at the same time the interests of the vast majority
    of the peasantsagainst the capitalists, while the
    Socialist-Revolutionaries, allying themselves with the
    capitalists, are betraying these interests.

Letus recall what Engels said on the peasant question shortly
    before his death. He stressed that socialists have no intention
    whatever of expropriating the small peasants, and that the
    advantages of mechanised socialist
      agriculture[2]will be made
    clear to them onlyby force of example.

Thewar has now confronted Russia in practice with a problem of
    exactly this order. There is a shortage of implements. They must
    be confiscated, and the highly efficient farms must not be
    “divided up”.

Thepeasants have begun to realise this. Need has compelled
    them to do so. The war has compelled them, for there are 110
    implements to be had anywhere. What there is must be thriftily
    husbanded. And large-scale farming means saving labour through the
    use of implements as well as many other things.

Thepeasants want to keep their small farms, to set equal
    standards for all, and to make readjustments on an equalitarian
    basis from time to time. Fine. No sensible socialist will differ
    with the peasant poor over this. If the land is confiscated, thatmeansthe domination of the banks has been undermined, if the
    implements are confiscated, thatmeansthe domination of capital
    has been undermined—and in that case,provided the proletariat rules centrally, provided political
    power is taken over by the
    proletariat, the rest will comeby itself, as a result of
    “force of example”, prompted by experience.

Thecrux of the matter lies in political power passing into the
    hands of the proletariat. When this has taken place, everything
    that is essential, basic, fundamental in the programme set out in
    the 242 mandateswill become feasible. Life will show what
    modifications it will undergo as it is carried out. This is an
    issue of secondary importance. We are not doctrinaires. Our theory
    is a guide to action, not a dogma.

Wedo not claim that Marx knew or Marxists know the road to
    socialism down to the last detail. It would be nonsense to claim
    anything of the kind. What we know is the direction of this road,
    and the class forces that follow it; the specific, practical
    details will come to light only through theexperience of the millionswhen they take things into their own
    hands.

Trustthe workers, comrade peasants, and break with the
      capitalists! Only in close alliance with the workerscanyou begin
      to carry out the programme set out in the 2/i2 man dates. Allied
      with the capitalists and led by the Socialist-Revolutionaries, you
      will never live to seea singledetermined, radical step in the spirit of this programme.

Butwhen in alliance with the urban workers, waging a ruthless
    struggle against capital, youbeginto realise the programme of
    the 242 mandates, the whole world will cometo our and your
    assistance, and then the success of that programme—not as it
    stands now, but in its essence—will be assured. When that
    happens, the domination of capital and wage slavery xviii come to
    an end. That will be the beginning of the reign of socialism, the
    reign of peace, the reign of the working people.

[1]Izvestiaof the All-Russia Congress of Peasants’ Deputies(Izvestia
Vserossiiskogo Soveta Krestyanskikh Deputatov)—the official daily
newspaper of that Soviet published in Petrograd from May 9 (22)
to December 1917. It expressed the views of the Right wing of the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party. Its attitude to the October
Revolution was hostile. It was closed down for its counter-revolutionary
propaganda.

[2]Leninis referring to Frederick Engels,The Peasant Question in
France and Germany(Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,Selected
Works, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1973, pp. 469–72).